Thursday, March 4, 2010

Flowering Plants: An Abominable Mystery

Charles Darwin called it an "abominable mystery," but a new study has solved the question of how flowering plants evolved. The answer: While busy implementing a new hydraulic system in plants, evolution accidently stumbled on improved photosynthesis as well. You see it just so happens that the two are linked. Improve one, and serendipitously the other improves as well. That's fortunate. As ScienceDaily explains:

Using measurements of leaf vein density and a linked hydraulic-photosynthesis model, Brodribb and Field reconstructed the evolution of leaf hydraulic capacity in seed plants. Their results revealed that an evolutionary transformation in the plumbing of angiosperm leaves pushed photosynthetic capacity to new heights.

But of course, a linked hydraulic-photosynthesis model was the key. Using it the evolutionists discovered that the new plumbing "pushed photosynthetic capacity to new heights." I'm sure the evolutionists were surprised to find their results would uncover, of all things, evolution. As the report explains:

There you have it. In a word, evolution happens. And as usual evolutionists fill in the details with hard science:

The evolution of dense leaf venation in flowering plants, around 140-100 million years ago, was an event with profound significance for the continued evolution of flowering plants. This step provided a "cretaceous productivity stimulus package" which reverberated across the biosphere and led to these plants playing the fundamental role in the biological and atmospheric functions of the earth.

I believe in evolution myself (guided, intelligent), but I think Cornelius Hunter's view may be that the "explanation" here isn't much of one at all. It's almost as if you're getting upset that astrology is being criticized, on the grounds that the alternative is necromancy - which is, of course, silly.

An alternative theory is not necessary in order for one to scientifically investigate a phenomenom. Gravity is not well understood, and there is no theory that explains it, but it is still investigated. There is the phenomena of change over time and the emergence of new forms of life, but they can be investigated even if we don't have an overall theory for it.

Once again, the evolutionary scientists start at the tail end and project their beliefs backward into the past. A just so story that does not have adequate support: no stepwise process of needed DNA changes, no indicate of the necessary environmnents under which the DNA change would reduce death rates, etc.

Evolution: the random interaction of particles via the four fundamental forces of nature leads to a bundle of atoms that make up a communications satellite orbitting earth.

laugh out loud: If flowering plants are so good at surviving, why do non-flowering plants still exists?

Non-flowering plants include algae, mosses, ferns and gymnosperms. Each organism needs to fit a niche in order to survive. If you consider the habitat where each group tends to be found, especially on the margins, you can probably see why.

"An alternative theory is not necessary in order for one to scientifically investigate a phenomenom. Gravity is not well understood, and there is no theory that explains it, but it is still investigated. There is the phenomena of change over time and the emergence of new forms of life, but they can be investigated even if we don't have an overall theory for it."

I'm not sure science has ever been performed in-vacuo, nor that it would work. I'm not sure people even think that way. What--Darwin was supposed catalog everything, and NOT make the connection to common descent and evolution?

Gravity is a good example, and Popper would have a field day with your logic. He envisioned science moving forward by falsifying the preceding theory. He argues our understanding of gravity has been refined by theories with better explaining power. Aristotle's mechanics were refined by Newton, which was refined with Einstein's general relativity. The current flaw is the inability to refine gravity with quantum mechanics, and the lack of a 'graviton.' What comes next? Many hypotheses exist, some will fail, one may prevail. If you think current work is just cataloging, and not testing working hypotheses, I think you're very mistaken.

But how would this work with just observation? It isn't JUST about data, it is about testing hypotheses. This process seems to bother anti-evolutionists, so much so that they present 1920's versions of evolutionary theory as disproof, not realizing the community has moved on, and continues to refine theory.

The study actually measures the change in leaf vasculature in the fossil record. It correlated this with the known photosynthetic efficiencies.

What would you call a dramatic, inherited change in phenotype? I feel this is the most basic use of the word evolution--change over time--that most people would have to agree with. Note there isn't a mechanism offered. The authors wouldn't even have to be 'darwinists' or 'neodarwinists' per se.

You misunderstand my point. Science can easily proceed in the biological realm without an overarching theory such as Darwinism. Not only are there are many less grand theories to falsify, but that is in fact how investigation of the biological realm preceded prior to Darwin's theory of evolution. You don't really expect us to believe that there was no science of biology prior to Darwin, do you?

Furthermore, Darwinism is not falsifiable, so it does not meet that particular definition of science anyway (not that that is the only definition of science). Many predictions have been made by Darwinists that have been shown to be false, and all that happens is that Darwinists change their tune and say that the falsification merely represents a tweak to Darwinism or reveals something that we didn't know before. Darwinism is like the Borg; it absorbs every single finding that occurs into itself, regardless of what that finding is.

Consequently, your several paragraphs fail to even undermine my point, let alone act as a defeater to it.

#John1453: Furthermore, Darwinism is not falsifiable, so it does not meet that particular definition of science anyway (not that that is the only definition of science). Many predictions have been made by Darwinists that have been shown to be false, and all that happens is that Darwinists change their tune and say that the falsification merely represents a tweak to Darwinism or reveals something that we didn't know before. Darwinism is like the Borg; it absorbs every single finding that occurs into itself, regardless of what that finding is.

"Darwinism" is too vague a term to use without clarification. In modern biology, it refers to the mechanism of natural selection, but you seem to be using it to refer to the Theory of Evolution.

A theory, such as the Theory of Evolution, is an explanatory framework. As such it consists of a number of interrelated claims. Scientific theories in fertile fields of study are often in a state of change, and that is especially true for evolutionary theory as it has historical aspects. So, of course! The Theory of Evolution changes in the light of new discoveries. That's what's supposed to happen!

"You don't really expect us to believe that there was no science of biology prior to Darwin, do you?"

Sure, just none that had the explanatory power of evolution. That is why evolutionary biology supplanted those, and has persisted, with modifications.

"Darwinism is not falsifiable,"

I'll agree with Zachriel here. 'Darwinism' has no meaning. Specific hypothesis could be falsified, such as those actually rejected: pure gradualism, Lamarckism, vitalism, and theories that failed to account for endosymbiont theory, horizontal gene transfer, hybridization, etc. "Darwinism is like the Borg; it absorbs every single finding that occurs into itself"

As opposed to what? Fields that reject data they don't agree with? This sounds like an endorsement. I would also disagree that it is all encompassing-it has rejected those listed above. There are fights within biology, and it is not a "big tent" in many ways.

"Consequently, your several paragraphs fail to even undermine my point, let alone act as a defeater to it."

I'll let others judge that, as I'm not so quick to praise myself. Your choice of gravity as a theory-less field, when it is Popper's prime example of how science works is a bit telling.

===The study actually measures the change in leaf vasculature in the fossil record. It correlated this with the known photosynthetic efficiencies.

What would you call a dramatic, inherited change in phenotype? I feel this is the most basic use of the word evolution--change over time--that most people would have to agree with.===

One problem philosophers have recognized is interpreting observations from a theory-neutral perspective. In this case you describe the observed phenotypes as representing "inherited change." Now that may be an accurate description, but it also may not be. Your assuming it is demonstrates the almost universal tendency of evolutionists to interpret biology in terms of evolution (and then claim it as evidence for evolution).

"In this case you describe the observed phenotypes as representing "inherited change." Now that may be an accurate description, but it also may not be."

I would say it is a parsimonious explanation. Non-inherited sustained phenotypic changes seem a bit untenable.

Theory-neutrality somehow feels a little bit anything goes. Inductive reasoning towards nothingness. Falsifying nothingness descends into nihilism. This blog seems to advocate into Derrada's realm. As I've posted before, most philosophers of science would reject this. No response on that. I don't think it is how science has worked, or ever worked.

I recall walking throug a forest and seeing angiosperms growing alongside ferns. I saw angiosperm trees grwoing next to conifers. They were all in the same niche. How could that be if the angiospersm were better at surviving. I guess natural selection works except where it doesn't.

Cornelius Hunter: In this case you describe the observed phenotypes as representing "inherited change."

Without first establishing Common Descent, most such evidence will simply not make sense. But by placing the various organisms in order of their development, the researchers can look at the specifics of the transition. The Theory of Evolution predicts intermediates in time and structure, and that is what the study demonstrates—a verified prediction from theory.

LOL: "I recall walking throug a forest and seeing angiosperms growing alongside ferns. I saw angiosperm trees grwoing next to conifers. They were all in the same niche. How could that be if the angiospersm were better at surviving. I guess natural selection works except where it doesn't."

And how many angiosperm species were there, relative to ferns and conifers? Was one of these groups ubiquitous? Which groups occupied particular areas? Did marginal (in terms of soil nutrient) habitats such as ridges appear to be the domain of one of the groups?

Did you undertake seedling and sapling counts of different species? Do all three groups appear to regenerate (i.e. large saplings) evenly in all areas at all stages of forest succession, or is one group more commonly found throughout succession, while the others rarely survive past the seedling stage?

Have you compared tropical and subtropical and boreal flora? How do conifers fare in the tropics?

If you cannot answer these questions, perhaps you have not examined the matter in sufficient detail to come to your conclusion.

Yes, this debate has gone on for centuries. Rationalists say science must have a framework whereas empiricists don't mind proceeding without one.

===This blog seems to advocate into Derrada's realm. As I've posted before, most philosophers of science would reject this. No response on that. I don't think it is how science has worked, or ever worked.===

Please don't interpret criticism of X as advocacy of ~X. Unlike you, I don't place many restrictions on science. Each to his own and let a thousand flowers bloom. Wisdom will be known by its fruit.

What I am against is hypocrisy and lies. It is ironic that evolutionists on the one hand exhibit such strong values and self righteous indignation at those who would dare violate their philosophy of science, and yet on the other hand mandate their religious truths and misrepresent science. Evolution is full of hypocrisy and lies.

The problem is not that some people are interested in an evolutionary explanation of origins. That would be fine if it were the case, but it is not. The problem is that evolution is mandated as fact, in spite of substantial scientific problems and because of metaphysical claims.

It would require a monumental over estimation of evolution to think we must descend into skepticism or nihilism in order to reject its mendacity.

Cornelius: "I'm the one being dishonest?...I'm the one who is out of bounds?"

A brief answer would be yes. Yes, because you have not explained how the increased water efficiency of angiosperms, with its benefits to photosynthetic rates, is somehow a just-so story. I imagine your only real problem is with the assumption of common descent.

If they removed the word evolution and simply said that the comparatively efficient water transport system in angiosperms allows for higher maximum rates of photosynthesis, would you have any problem with this? Would you start using words like serendipitous and fortunate to describe this difference between this are other plant groups? My guess would be no.

Would you have had a problem if, when they said: "exerting substantial evolutionary leverage" they replaced evolutionary with ecological? My guess would be no.

You refer to "a linked hydraulic-photosynthesis model" as if the two concepts were unrelated. This is an attempt to make their position seem ridiculous, when it is not.

Your critique of evolution posits it is both rigid and dogmatic, but ever-changing. This is contradictory, and leads to curious posts, where you use posts by 'Darwinists' as refutation of evolution. I think that evolutionary theory has grown, included some hypotheses, and rejected others shows that it is not as dogmatic and rigid as you would hope.

You, for instance make much of "junk" DNA (mistakenly, I believe). If there was a Darwinian prediction, what does it say that there are evolutionary scientists working on it now? What of Gould and punctuated equilibrium? The theory is useful in its plasticity, in that it non-dogmatically incorporates new information, and pares away the dead branches. I have no firm beliefs except what the evidence shows.

Do you have an example of the "hypocrisy and lies?" What data has been suppressed? What lies need refutation? Your utter lack of advocacy seems a hard place to start to expose the truth. You over and over again post science articles, with slight or no analysis, other that a pithy "religion drives science."

I should thank you, because you do find some really great articles that have expanded my horizons, and reinforced my belief in the science behind them.

laugh out loud: I saw angiosperms and non-angiosperms growing side by side at the same time. That's not supose to happen of angiospersm are better.

We suggested you consider the more careful obsersations of Henry David Thoreau, who also took a walk in the woods. Instead of responding to the point made, you simply ignored it.

Angiosperms are not better. They are fitter in some environments, and conifers are fitter in others. In the northern latitudes, for instance, there are great pine forests. In damp, tropical climates, flowering trees predominate. And in some environments, they can coexist.

Only that day dawns to which we are awake. There is more day to dawn. The sun is but a morning star.

I saw angiosperms and non-angiosperms growing side by side at the same time. That's not supose to happen of angiospersm are better.

Not at all, if they are growing side by side then evolution predicts it. If they are not then evolution, whatever it is, predicts that too.

Angiosperms are not better. They are fitter in some environments, and conifers are fitter in others. In the northern latitudes, for instance, there are great pine forests.

You are merely proceeding on to another mental illusion. If there were not great pine forests in the northern latitudes that would be exactly what evolution, whatever it is, predicted.

With principles such as these, anything can be explained, and so can its contrary.[...]All this is certainly somewhat tautological, but on balance it leads us to believe that all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds. With the success of superior beings assured, humanity can march forward to the superman. But this would be a mistake…. It turns out that the best are not always the best; often it is the worst that win out…(The Pure Society: from Darwin to Hitler by Andre Pichot :12-13)

In damp, tropical climates, flowering trees predominate.

And supposedly if they did not then "evolution" would be falsified? Not at all.

mynym: You are merely proceeding on to another mental illusion. If there were not great pine forests in the northern latitudes that would be exactly what evolution, whatever it is, predicted.

Actually, you have to show a correlation between the variation in traits and differential reproductive potential.

Zachriel: In damp, tropical climates, flowering trees predominate.

mynym: And supposedly if they did not then "evolution" would be falsified?

Not at all. We can observe evolution. If there was no such correlation, it would mean natural selection was not the explanation. Turns out, in this case, there is a correlation between traits and ecological distribution.

Actually, you have to show a correlation between the variation in traits and differential reproductive potential.

Not at all, evolution in the sense of a progressive creation myth could still be taken to be true even if there was no correlation. And after all, evolution is also said to include all observed change which would also remain accurate whatever is observed, mainly because it is defined as the observation itself.

We can observe evolution.

Of course we can because change happens, much like excrement.

It seems that most biologists equivocate on whether evolution is a theory or an observation due to their limited intellects. This may cause you to want to talk about the theory of gravity and so on as if there is a unified "theory of evolution" which specifies forces governing evolution in biology. Well, you can go ahead if you like with that because it is an interesting comparison. It's curious that biologists typically rely on arguments of association of that sort instead of just pointing to the equations specifying a supposedly unified "theory of evolution" and pointing out how they verify their progressive creation myths. There is no theory of evolution, many theories, mechanisms and hypotheses are included in "evolution."

If there was no such correlation, it would mean natural selection was not the explanation.

Verification of the theory of natural selection may refute hypotheses of progressive evolution, given that the theory predicts the preservation and destruction of existing biological specification and has little to do with the origin of all species.

Zachriel: Actually, you have to show a correlation between the variation in traits and differential reproductive potential.

mynym: Not at all, evolution in the sense of a progressive creation myth could still be taken to be true even if there was no correlation.

If by "progressive," you mean adaptation, then natural selection is considered an essential mechanism. But we do observe natural selection, and we do observe the correlation between heritable traits and differential reproductive success.

mynym: There is no theory of evolution, many theories, mechanisms and hypotheses are included in "evolution."

Of course there's a Theory of Evolution, and yes, it includes many mechanisms and hypotheses.

LOL says: "I saw angiosperms and non-angiosperms growing side by side at the same time. That's not supose to happen of angiospersm are better."

And you believe that your simplistic observation invalidates evolutionary theory?

Ecologists are quite aware of these patterns. You would do well to learn something of niches - two species can be side by side and occupy different niches. Hence the series of questions I posed above, that you chose to ignore.

Contra Zachriel, I would say that angiosperms are generally fitter and more sophisticated than gymnosperms. We can see this in the temporal and spatial niches that different species occupy. The broad pattern is one of displacement occurring first in the high energy regions and spreading slowly to the low energy regions.

But I say 'generally' for a reason. This cannot simply be applied to all gymnosperm species.

The extant gymnosperms are the relatively few that have survived because they do well in their niches. The fossil record points to more speciose gynmnosperm taxa in the past, many of which have become extinct or marginalised since the time of the angiosperms dawned.

Many of the temperate/subtropical emergent tree species that occupy lower fertility soil are slow-growing gymnosperms. They do better in this environment than do most angiosperms. However, some angiosperms persist in the same environment as well.

You make the simplistic claim that these two taxa cannot coexist. This is incorrect because you do not understand what niches exist in the forest. Light, water, nitrogen - these are three primary requirements for plants. Can one taxa entirely exclude other taxa from all light, all water, all soil nutrients at all times through succession from recently disturbed forest to old growth stands? Consider that some species live on a time scale of thousnads of years, others are annual.

If you had a basic understanding of the dynamics in terms of time and space involved, you would realise that your observation points to complex interactions and tradeoffs, not to a simple dichotomy.

Umm, no. Evolutionary biology did not supplant those theories. The types of things being investigated then--how do plants photosynthesize, how does sap move, what diseases attack plants, etc.--are still being investigated today, and were and can be investigated without any overarching theory such as evolution.

Firstly, there is much structuring to the dynamics of the forest. I have given a brief outline already. Your observations of a flower and a fern, or an angiosperm tree and gymnosperm tree do not counter that. Again, this is the difference between systematic observations and casual ones.

Secondly, as I have already said, things growing alongside each other does not demonstrate they occupy the same niche. A simple way to demonstrate this: predator and prey necessarily occur in the same space, but obviously exist in different ecological niches. Many other relationships and non-relationships are possible and more subtle than this.

Thirdly, there are different ways of temporally partitioning niche space - i.e. things occur at different times on the same spot, OR things can occur on different time scales on the same spot.

Fourthly - and finally - if things were as simple and absolute as you try to claim they are, there would just be one species of angiosperm in any given area at any given time because it would have outcompeted all others.